9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department tried to rely on the LME prices though they have themselves not relied on those prices uniformly in every case of import during the relevant period. The Tribunal, in the above cited order, also observed that the price of a consignment of 1250 tons is not to be adopted for a consignment of 16 tons as the imports are on different commercial levels, and therefore are not comparable. The department's appeal against this order was rejected by the Supreme Court [ 2001 (3) TMI 1029 - SC ORDER] . The Supreme Court observed, We find no merits in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs. In the case of CC, Nhava Sheva v. Sangeeta Metal (India) - [ 2001 (10) TMI 471 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] , WRB, following the decision of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value as enhanced by the lower authority, held that reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on stray instances of imports at higher prices and reject the transaction value is not correct. The reliance on LME prices, according to him, is misplaced. He held that the value declared by the importers is a transaction value as per Section 14(1) and Rule 4 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules respectively and since the department has not alleged, that the mischief of Clause (a) to (d) of Rule 4(2) of the said rules at the relevant time was attracted, transaction value ought to have been accepted; that the transactions were at arms length, and that the price was not the sole consideration in all the cases before him. Relying on v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price and contemporaneous prices of brass scrap is comparable with the imported goods under dispute. The Revenue relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Deccan Polypack Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 398. The Revenue's plea is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the evidence of contemporaneous prices and LME prices basing on which the original authority has enhanced the declared value to US $ 1322 PMT CIF. 4. When the case was called, neither the departmental representative nor the respondents were present. Perused the records. 5. The dispute is regarding valuation of imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) heavily relied on the ratio obtained in the case of Basant Industries reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 155 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs." In the case of CC, Nhava Sheva v. Sangeeta Metal (India) - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 306 (T) = 2002 (48) RLT 111, WRB, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621, the Tribunal observed that in the absence of any of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the transaction value declared by the importer has to be accepted. 6. All in all, it is settled law that the transaction value cannot be altered/loaded on the basis of values declared in stray imports when the quantity/quality is not comparable. LME prices are only indicative at best. The transaction value declared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
